Speeding in a thirty limit

[Ethan]

I do believe i have address the slow driver issue and have also said yes they do cause accidents themselves

I also dont believe i have suggested that people pootle along at 50 mph or 30mph on a motorway because that itself causes problems - also people doing 50mph in the middle of the road

Same with people doing 30mph on a 60mph road will cause problems and tailbacks

i would also ask how many tailbacks you see in housing estates because someone is driving too slow -

If someone is driving at the speed limit and causing a tailback then who is causing the problem ? The guy sticking to the limit - or the people behind him dying to get past because they want not need to get somewhere quicker.

You also get the moron who whilst you are driving at the speed limit is right up your backside , you also get the moron who isnt happy with someone doing the speed limit he must overtake where there is danger

People dont need to go above the speed limit - unless you can tell me a good enough reason why you "need" to go above the speed limit.

My witnessing my friends daughter being killed tuned me into a more aware drive i believe and made me want to ensure i was as safe as i could possibly be on the road - when i drive through residential areas im quite happy to drive a little bit slower to ensure that if a child did run out then i give them the best chance possible to survive if i didnt react in time or they were too close. I would rather get home safe with no incidents than get home a couple mins early but put people at extra risk.

I dont pootle along a roads at 30 mph when the limit is 60 , i dont hog the middle lane driving at 50 mph on a motorway nor do i do any other acts that i think might put myself and other drivers at risk.

People will never be able to cover every single possible event that "could" but when it comes to our safety then i believe there our people out there far more qualified than us who come up with there desicions on road safety.

But i will ask the question again - is there ever any occasion when anyone bar emergency services "needs" to break the speed limit set out by our governing laws.

Wrong question, though.

The right question is what speed best balances road and pedestrian safety versus actually allowing the world to turn? The answer is not that 29 is good and 31 is bad, but that there are speeds which are appropriate to road conditions, weather etc. On a quiet dry motorway on a clear Tuesday in summer, that might be 85. On a dark, busy wet evening in winter, it might be 45.

As for the issue about housing estates, the same general rule applies - there is a speed which is appropriate given the conditions. There are also residential roads not in estates, roads in urban areas with shops where there are pedestrians, etc etc, and a whole range of scenarios.

The point about the need to observe or not speed limits is an arbitrary and specious one.

 

[Foxholer]

If I was doing under the speed limit and a child ran out in front of me I wouldn't feel bad, it's NOT my fault if someone decides to run out into the road.

H'mm. I think you should still feel bad!

Sure it's not your fault, but you should be driving in such a fashion that, when such events happen, you are capable of avoiding a collision! That's the Defensive Driving approach I learnt 45 years ago!

 

[ColchesterFC]

Can you tell me why anyone "needs" to drive over any speed limit .

1. Getting a pregnant girlfriend to hospital when she goes into labour
2. Getting an injured pet to the vets
3. Getting an ill child to hospital
4. Getting to that new pub on the M40 before last orders.

And yes I've broken the speed limit in 3 out of the 4 scenarios and would do exactly the same thing again in similar circumstances. Speed doesn't kill. Inappropriate speed is the problem. 90mph on a dry, deserted motorway at 3am might not be a problem while 27mph on a wet road near a school could well be too high.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

its not the wrong question - i believe its avoiding the question

The speed limits have been set out by people far more knowledgable than us - they have made the judgement call and its in our laws now. Break the speed limit and people will be punished for it. Thats regardless of if you think the road is safe for you to go 50 even though someone has decided its a 30 , thats regardless of what time of night it is. Someone has made that call and its not in our remit to decide to against that call when driving and decide to do something else. Conditions can will slow drivers down but just because the motorway maybe quiet doesnt mean you should be able to go above that limit and you shouldnt "need" to go above that limit.

Are speed limits stopping the world from turning ? Do people really feel the need to want to go quicker ?

we make judgement calls when we drive - the people have set out what they believe should be the maximum speed anyone should drive on that road - now we can debate about the specific road but practically you must not cross that maximum speed regardless of the conditions or what time of day it is - you will not be able to give an reason that can justify someone going over that speed limit set out.

Ill say it again - the speed limit has been set by the authority - is there any reason why someone needs to go above that limit.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

1. Getting a pregnant girlfriend to hospital when she goes into labour
2. Getting an injured pet to the vets
3. Getting an ill child to hospital
4. Getting to that new pub on the M40 before last orders.

And yes I've broken the speed limit in 3 out of the 4 scenarios and would do exactly the same thing again in similar circumstances. Speed doesn't kill. Inappropriate speed is the problem. 90mph on a dry, deserted motorway at 3am might not be a problem while 27mph on a wet road near a school could well be too high.

Sorry but they arent "needs" - you have emergency services that can do those for you - and even then they still need to drive with due care and if they hit someone they after to take responsibilty for it and face consquesnces

 

[Foxholer]

But i will ask the question again - is there ever any occasion when anyone bar emergency services "needs" to break the speed limit set out by our governing laws.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...nt_data/file/269588/consultation-response.pdf

Question 3: Should the additional purposes for speed limit exemptions
be largely confined to some of the organisations and purposes currently allowed to fit
and use blue lights?
.
.
Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland (ACPOS) raised the issue of
agencies like HM Customs and Excise and the Security Services that are not
on the list of blue light vehicles but may merit inclusion in the exemption.
ACPOS stressed that careful consideration must therefore be given to the
operational necessity for potential cases and they must be judged on their own
merits. Public safety must be the main concern.

Apparently for pursuit of Drug Smugglers and/or Terrorists resp.

 

[ColchesterFC]

Sorry but they arent "needs" - you have emergency services that can do those for you - and even then they still need to drive with due care and if they hit someone they after to take responsibilty for it and face consquesnces

Agree to some degree Phil but let me give you one situation to answer. You have an unwell child showing signs of meningitis. The hospital is 15 miles away and you know that if you jump in the car you can be in A&E in less than 15 minutes if you put your foot down on the dual carriageway between home and the hospital. Or you could dial 999 and ask for an ambulance to turn up which could easily take 15 or 20 minutes minimum. Would you sit at home and wait risking the life of your child just to avoid going a few mph over the speed limit?

 

[triple_bogey]

:rofl::rofl:

 

[Deleted member 15344]

Agree to some degree Phil but let me give you one situation to answer. You have an unwell child showing signs of meningitis. The hospital is 15 miles away and you know that if you jump in the car you can be in A&E in less than 15 minutes if you put your foot down on the dual carriageway between home and the hospital. Or you could dial 999 and ask for an ambulance to turn up which could easily take 15 or 20 minutes minimum. Would you sit at home and wait risking the life of your child just to avoid going a few mph over the speed limit?

it is a very specific situation though which - cant say what i would.

Dialing 999 is something i would do straight away before anything and i know they can patch you straight through to the ambulance who talk to you as they are on the move - thats exactly what they did to my OH when i had an asthma attack.

In fairness the emergency services in urban areas are close with at least paramedics near by.

But we digress.

 

[Foxholer]

Really? Well I look forward greatly to the day you and I meet and you can say that to my face. We will see what tune you whistle then....

Observation, not Criticism - as pointed out in the bit you haven't quoted. I'm certainly one myself - and not ashamed of it!

I already have evidence that you are generous as well :thup: so don't take it too negatively - apologies if it came across that way!

 

[London mike 61]

I think there is a lot to be said for obeying the ' spirit ' of the law when a life is at stake rather than the letter of the law which could see the loss of life by adhering to the letter of the law. But by no means should anyone use this to excuse bad driving , after all the emphasis is on ' emergency' and life threatening .

 

[stevie_r]

It's really odd that a number of people see the raising of the motorway speed limit by 10 or 15 mph as more dangerous than wrestling polar bears, not forgetting of course that they are fairly straight and we are all travelling the same direction. No mention from these people however, regarding poorly lit fairly twisting A roads, where two vehicles can have a closing speed of 120 mph whilst separated by nothing more than a couple of feet of fresh air.

 

[Ethan]

its not the wrong question - i believe its avoiding the question

The speed limits have been set out by people far more knowledgable than us - they have made the judgement call and its in our laws now. Break the speed limit and people will be punished for it. Thats regardless of if you think the road is safe for you to go 50 even though someone has decided its a 30 , thats regardless of what time of night it is. Someone has made that call and its not in our remit to decide to against that call when driving and decide to do something else. Conditions can will slow drivers down but just because the motorway maybe quiet doesnt mean you should be able to go above that limit and you shouldnt "need" to go above that limit.

Are speed limits stopping the world from turning ? Do people really feel the need to want to go quicker ?

we make judgement calls when we drive - the people have set out what they believe should be the maximum speed anyone should drive on that road - now we can debate about the specific road but practically you must not cross that maximum speed regardless of the conditions or what time of day it is - you will not be able to give an reason that can justify someone going over that speed limit set out.

Ill say it again - the speed limit has been set by the authority - is there any reason why someone needs to go above that limit.

You have said it plenty of times already. Your argument is a circular one. It basically boils down to you should follow the speed limits because they are the speed limits. Except on Cyprus, though?

As for the idea that they have been set by 'authority' which I interpret as Parliament, then you probably already know that is rather different from saying they have been scientifically determined to be appropriate for today's traffic conditions and vehicles. Because these limits were set before many here were born when both conditions were different.
To have a sensible discussion on this you need to get past the 'it's the law' mantra and discuss the underlying issues.

 

[Imurg]

It's really odd that a number of people see the raising of the motorway speed limit by 10 or 15 mph as more dangerous than wrestling polar bears, not forgetting of course that they are fairly straight and we are all travelling the same direction..

And yet still there are crashes….....

 

[Deleted member 15344]

It's really odd that a number of people see the raising of the motorway speed limit by 10 or 15 mph as more dangerous than wrestling polar bears, not forgetting of course that they are fairly straight and we are all travelling the same direction. No mention from these people however, regarding poorly lit fairly twisting A roads, where two vehicles can have a closing speed of 120 mph whilst separated by nothing more than a couple of feet of fresh air.

Have you seen the reconstruction of the Hungerford crash on the M4 - think it was 30 plus deaths in that one.

 

[chris661]

Have you seen the reconstruction of the Hungerford crash on the M4 - think it was 30 plus deaths in that one.

It's all about the facts.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=hungerford+M4+crash

Are you basing your argument on a solitary incident almost 25 years ago? What percentage have vehicles improved by since then?

 

[ColchesterFC]

Have you seen the reconstruction of the Hungerford crash on the M4 - think it was 30 plus deaths in that one.

51 cars involved and 10 deaths. But the original cause was a driver falling asleep and a large contributing factor to that was fog. So again it wasn't speed that was to blame but tiredness and inappropriate speed for the conditions. The reports said that the cars were travelling at 70mph so none of them were speeding but they were driving too fast for the conditions.

I hate quoting wikipedia but this was the first report I came to.....

"On 13 March 1991, a multiple-vehicle collision occurred during foggy conditions on the eastbound carriageway of the M4 motorway near Hungerford, Berkshire, between the Membury service station and junction 14.Ten people were killed in the pile-up, which involved 51 vehicles, making it one of the deadliest crashes in the history of Britain's motorway network.
[h=2]At 2:15 p.m. on 13 March 1991, a driver fell asleep at the wheel of his van and skidded into the central reservation. A car travelling behind the van changed lanes to avoid contact but other vehicles behind, which were travelling at speeds averaging 70 miles per hour, failed to avoid the crashed van and skidded into the other lanes of the carriageway. Others took evasive action by driving onto the hard shoulder and up the sides of the cutting. An articulated lorry then jack-knifed across all three lanes of the eastbound carriageway". [/h]

 

[stevie_r]

Have you seen the reconstruction of the Hungerford crash on the M4 - think it was 30 plus deaths in that one.

No I haven't, but I think you will find that it had nothing to do with drivers exceeding the speed limit.

 

[Ethan]

Have you seen the reconstruction of the Hungerford crash on the M4 - think it was 30 plus deaths in that one.

Yes. That is irrelevant because the question is speed inappropriate to the conditions. That crash happened in fog with poor visibility and the effects were amplified by a number of chance events. The same M4 now has more overhead speed signals and the rules for using these in fog have changed.

These one off events are always a bad basis for law making. There is a legal saying 'hard cases make bad laws'.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

It's all about the facts.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=hungerford+M4+crash

Are you basing your argument on a solitary incident almost 25 years ago? What percentage have vehicles improved by since then?

Nah

you can use this one

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jan/05/two-killed-crash-m1-motorway

or this one

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-25211672

or this one

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-gloucestershire-25290043

or this one

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23968776

or this one

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...G472kl0IcfSC0KRr0ERshGw&bvm=bv.59930103,d.ZGU

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/12/27/car-sliced-in-two-in-m11-crash_n_4509301.html

at a quick glance think most of them if not all are from the last 6-12 months